It is a starting point for debate about the Middle East that one can oppose Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. Jews and Palestinians are locked in a violent, complex dispute. Reasonable people can disagree about, say, whether Ariel Sharon's counter-terrorism strategy is too aggressive -- or whether roadblocks used to control the movement of Palestinians are inhumane.

But since the Al-Aqsa intifada broke out in 2000, hard-left academics and activists have sometimes blurred the distinction between hatred of Israeli policies and hatred of Jews. To excuse suicide bombings as a legitimate option of the "oppressed" (so long as the victims are Jewish), to recycle the lies of Jenin and other modern-day blood libels, to demonize Israel as "genocidal" while ignoring the far worse calamities in Chechnya, Sudan, Algeria and elsewhere -- all these tactics reflect a mindset that many Jews find indistinguishable from plain bigotry.

Exhibit A here in Canada is Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. Since last year, the educator has been posting his essays on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.org. The articles vary in subject: terrorism, U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, etc. But they are all soaked in a single, dominant motif: a shrill, virtually pathological hatred for the state of Israel.

Neumann seems to view the Jewish state as a real-life Mordor populated by ghoulish orcs who seek nothing but the stench of death. Israel, the Trent educator says, is "a growing evil" whose campaign against the neighboring Arabs is "vengeful, relentless [and] sadistically gradual." The country's "crimes," he writes, reflect "a cold-blooded, calculated, indeed an eagerly embraced choice of war over peace, and an elaborate plan to seek out those who had fled the misery of previous confrontations, to make certain that their suffering would continue."

Neumann believes Israel is plotting a "catastrophic assault" on the Palestinians. And its hope, he says, is that, "at some point, [it] will be able to kill many tens of thousands."

Naturally, comparisons to the Nazis and their eugenics agenda abound. Israeli settlers want peace "just as Hitler wanted peace," Mr. Neumann says. The Jews see the Palestinians as "lice," and are seeking their "extinction." Because the Jewish state is built on "vicious ethnic nationalism," it "thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die." The army, meanwhile, serves "the higher purpose of clearing away the vermin who resist the implantation of superior Jewish DNA throughout the occupied territories." Are Prof. Neumann's views anti-Semitic? The answer to this question does not appear to trouble him much. His theory is that Jews bear a collective responsibility to speak out against Israel. And if they fail to acquit themselves of that duty, then they have fairly earned the world's hatred. As usual, he sees a comparison with the Nazis as apt: "If it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews." Thus, he writes in his June 4, 2002 Counterpunch essay What is Antisemitism?, "we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it."

Trent is a respected university. So how does Prof. Neumann get away with this hate-fuelled claptrap?

For one thing, he is a Jew by birth -- even if he talks about his ancestral culture disdainfully, like an abolitionist describing his slave-holding forebears. As with every minority group, Jews get wider latitude to criticize their own than outsiders.

Another factor is "academic freedom." Earlier this year, the Canadian Jewish Congress wrote to the President of Trent University, Bonnie Patterson, expressing concern about the professor's views. She demurred that "the free expression of ideas in universities [is] essential to our teaching."

A noble thought. But one wonders if Mr. Neumann would still be working at Trent if he'd instead argued that anti-black hatred was acceptable because of what Robert Mugabe was doing in Zimbabwe.

The President also noted there had been no complaints against Mr. Neumann's classroom behavior. The Trent philosophy prof may be anti-Israel -- but, as the university sees things, his feelings aren't interfering with his role as an educator.

Or are they? This summer, it came out that Prof. Neumann had recently engaged in a revealing e-mail debate about Israel and Judaism with the "webmaster" of an Internet site called Jewish Tribal Review (JTR).

In the exchange -- which JTR subsequently published -- the webmaster pushes Mr. Neumann to expand his critique of Israel to include "Jewish/Zionist hegemony" in America's "media/government" machine. To his credit, Prof. Neumann declines. But his response, as reported by JTR, contains this admission: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it."

This statement can be read narrowly or broadly. So the JTR webmaster asks him for clarification: "Am I reading this right? ... You say you are 'not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding ... except so far as it serves that purpose.' Is this the foundation of your teachings as a philosopher?"

In his response, Prof. Neumann reportedly writes: "If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."

(Prof. Neumann admits he spoke "carelessly" during his exchange with JTR, which he regarded as confidential; and insists "I do not lie or obfuscate in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians." Regarding the above-cited statements, he told me he would "neither confirm nor deny having made" them.)

As his Trent University Web page illustrates, Prof. Neumann is an accomplished scholar with a lengthy publication record. But I think it is an open question whether someone who would apparently subordinate all to the vilification of a single country belongs in a classroom. Certainly, it is a question Trent officials will have to wrestle with in coming weeks.

CJC confronts Trent U over professor,
The Canadian Jewish News, [posted here at the Canadian Jewish Congress website]
By Anna Morgan, Aug 13, 2003

Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) has written a letter of complaint to Trent University president Bonnie Patterson requesting a meeting over an apparent exchange of e-mails between a Trent professor and a Web site that compiles links to articles about "Jewish power." The correspondence is posted on Jewish Tribal Review's Web site and is attributed to Trent philosophy professor Michael Neumann as part of a discussion on anti-Semitism on Nov. 25, 2002.

The Jewish Tribal Review describes itself as a compilation of links to online articles "about Jewish and Zionist influence in popular culture, Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, American Judeocentrism, and Jewish political lobbying."

In response to the question of whether the Jewish Tribal Review is anti-Semitic, Neumann apparently states, "I do, but I don't get bent out of shape about it."

The e-mail correspondence goes on to state, "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose."

The Web site quotes Neumann as writing, "I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don't care."

When it becomes clear in the e-mail exchange that the comments will be published, Neumann apparently writes, "When I said that I would do anything, including lie and obfuscate, to help the Palestinians, I meant the sort of thing that someone would mean who said he would do anything, including lie and obfuscate, to save the lives of his parents… It is a statement of commitment, not a strategic announcement… In fact, I do not lie or obfuscate in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians."

In an e-mail interview with The CJN, Neumann says the material on the Jewish Tribal Review site was published against his express wishes. Neumann goes on to say, "I repudiate everything attributed to me on that site, and – since I refuse to read the material – will not even comment on its authenticity. I have never voluntarily had anything to do with their Web pages, and consider their site among the most ingenious, insidious and distastefully anti-Semitic enterprises around."

The correspondence apparently began when the Jewish Tribal Review webmaster sent a note to Neumann, praising his article titled "What is Anti-semitism," which appeared in the June 4, 2002 edition of the left-wing Internet magazine, Counterpunch. (See "Professor's e-mail raises concerns of intimidation," CJN, Feb. 13.)

In the Counterpunch article, "What is Anti-semitism," Neumann argues that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic acts are given too much attention and says they are particularly unimportant to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He writes that "we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it."

In the e-mail interview with The CJN, Neumann wrote that "as someone who lost relatives to Hitler's camps, all anti-Semitism bothers me… At this point, however, the condition of the Palestinians, and the crimes committed against them in my name as a Jew, bother me far more. I do not believe that the Palestinian cause can be helped by 'vicious racist anti-Semitism,' by which I mean hostility directed against Jews for what they are rather than for what any of them do. I do believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will inflame anti-Semitism until it is resolved by a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories."

CJC executive director Bernie Farber said in an interview that Neumann's apparent willingness in the Jewish Tribal Review to encourage "vicious, racist anti-Semitism" has moved beyond "what is considered proper political discourse."

Farber added that Neumann's apparent comments about lying in the name of anti-Semitism should be of grave concern to the faculty and administration of Trent and that students at Trent should not be subjected to Neumann's willingness to instrumentalize anti-Semitism.

"How can students have faith in a professor who appears to have embraced deception as a legitimate tool of influence?" Farber asked. A Trent spokesperson said Patterson is away on holiday, but will follow up on the matter in early September.

Canadian Jewish Congress lashes out at Trent prof over alleged web site commentary,
By Blair Edwards, Petersborough This Week [posted here at the Canadian Jewish Congress web site], August 13, 2003

A Trent University professor has come under fire from the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) over allegations he wrote "anti-Semitic" comments that were later posted on an Internet web site.

E-mails allegedly written by Prof. Michael Neumann and posted this summer on the web site Jewish Tribal Review read, "If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care.

"If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."

Prof. Neumann says private e-mails he sent to the webmaster of the Jewish Tribal Review were published without his permission.

He refuses to confirm or deny the accuracy of the e-mails.

"I therefore refuse to inspect the site's contents or comment on their accuracy," he told This Week.

The webmaster of the Jewish Tribal Review was called by This Week for comment but did not respond by Tuesday's deadline.

"It should go without saying that I do not regard my writings as anti-Semitic," says Prof. Neumann.

"They are at times furiously critical, not only of Israel but of the North American Jewish community -- which I continue to regard as my own."

Trent University says it has investigated the matter and that any articles and comments posted on the web sites by Prof. Neumann were his to write as a private citizen.

CJC executive director Bernie Farber says the organization sent a letter of protest to Trent University president Bonnie Patterson . Mrs. Patterson, who is now on vacation, agreed to meet with CJC representatives in September to discuss the allegations.

"The university has met with Professor Neumann," says university spokesperson Don Cummings .

"We have had a mutually satisfying meeting with him over what has happened in the past.

"From our interview, we have concluded he has not made any comments in the classroom and that he has made his comments as a private citizen."

Mr. Cummings says Trent has not received any complaints about Prof. Neumann's classroom teaching.

"As a university, we are going to continue to promote academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas," adds Mr. Cummings.

Prof. Neumann's alleged comments were later published in an Aug. 9 editorial of the National Post, headlined "Trent University's Problem Professor."

In an e-mail interview with This Week, Prof. Neumann noted, "First, the material on the Jewish Tribal Review web site was published not only without my consent but against my express wishes. I therefore refuse to inspect the site's contents or comment on their accuracy."

Prof. Neumann adds he has never expressed his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict or anti-Semitism in the classroom or on campus.

"I will say that the statements attributed to me give a distorted impression of my views. As someone who lost many relatives to Hitler's camps, all anti-Semitism bothers me."

Mr. Neumann's comments also appeared Aug. 11, 2003 in a letter he wrote to the National Post in response to the Aug. 9 editorial.

"To not deny it...it puts a real question mark on his ability as an academic," says Mr. Farber.

"If he says, in his opinion, it's perfectly OK to encourage vicious anti-Semitism --that is something the authorities at Trent have to be aware of." Mr. Farber says the CJC may later contact "law authorities" after speaking with Mrs. Patterson.

"A person espousing these remarks does not belong in the classroom."

The CJC initially complained to the university about Prof. Neumann's comments in articles that appeared on the web site CounterPunch last winter.

President Patterson noted at that time that the university had received no complaints about Prof. Neumann's classroom work. She also wrote that the free expression of ideas in universities is essential to teaching.

Jewish group criticizes Trent prof,
by David Smith, The Peterborough Examiner (Canada), August 18, 2003
"The executive director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) said the organization won't rest until Trent University does something about what it calls anti-Semitic statements attributed to one of its philosophy professors.

"If I were a Jewish student or if I were an Israeli exchange student or if I were an Israeli taking courses at Trent University, I would not feel comfortable whatsoever in his classroom, and for good reason," said Bernie Farber, referring to Michael Neumann, a Jewish professor.

Neumann most recently drew fire from the CJC for an apparent e-mail exchange he had with an unnamed Webmaster of the Jewish Tribal Review, who later posted the comments on the Internet site. "If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care," reads one message attributed to Neumann.

"This again is a quote I do not endorse and which distorts my views. The truth is important in discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I have never seen the slightest reason to lie of obfuscate on behalf of the Palestinians," Neumann told The Examiner. "It is certainly not OK to hate Jews as a whole, and I have never said it was. Everyone's suffering is equally important, which does not mean that everyone who suffers is in the right."

Neumann would not agree to a telephone interview, insisting upon an e-mail exchange. The Examiner does not conduct e-mail interviews, but agreed to send Neumann the questions and have him read his responses over the telephone. Neumann refuses to inspect the JTR's contents or comment on the accuracy of the statements attributed to him.

"I hadn't the slightest idea that the exchange might be published, and certainly not without my permission," Neumann said. "I do not keep complete records of my correspondence in any case so confirmation would be difficult. And, I don't want to lend legitimacy to a site I consider anti-semitic." While "I don't encourage anti-Semitism and don't approve of encouraging it," Neumann said risk of "misuse by anti-Semites ... deter me from speaking my mind."

Farber said Neumann "has engaged in a lot of bafflegab," but the fact he hasn't denied he made the statements indicates he wrote the material. "If this was me and I was misquoted by any Web site, I would be yelling bloody blue murder instead of saying I'm not going to read it therefore I'm not going to comment on it. So, we are left with the unmistakable impression unless he says otherwise that this is his material," Farber said.

This is the third time Neumann has come under fire from the CJC this year, Farber said. The CJC wrote to Trent president Bonnie Patterson over an article by Neumann entitled What is Anti-Semitism that appeared in the June 4, 2002 edition of the left-wing Internet magazine Counterpunch. The CJC wrote a second letter to Patterson in February after Neumann sent a letter titled Jew-baiting to Trent's Jewish students. Neumann said he was responding to an earlier e-mail from Arieh Rosenblum, B'nai Brith Canada's national campus co-ordinator, who sent a letter to the Trent Jewish Students Association, expressing concern about the Counterpunch article. The e-mail was forwarded Neumann who responded to those addresses in Rosenblum's e-mail, not every Jewish student on campus.

The CJC is slated to meet with Patterson next month to discuss Neumann. The CJC wants Trent to "take a very hard look" at Neumann, but said it would be inappropriate to comment on how the situation should be dealt with.
"If they come out and say 'we're not taking any action,' rest assured that we are not going to leave it at that," Farber said, stopping short of calling him unfit to teach.

Trent spokesman Don Cumming said university officials have met with both Neumann and students. "Both of those meetings resulted in mutually satisfying outcomes for all parties," he said. From Trent's perspective the issue has been investigated and resolved with Neumann slated to teach when classes resume next month.